discuss_ethics

Q3: Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions and/or discussion.
“My conclusions.” Your conclusions and opinions about the case. Be sure to explain and justify what you write. 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way.
“Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it.

Answer:

The facts of the case: Artificial Intelligence has developed to the point that robots can be made that behave very similarly to the way humans behave. Sophia, one of these AI that was created in Saudi Arabia is one of the most advanced AI in the world. Sophia is so advanced, that Saudi Arabia granted her Saudi Arabian citizenship. In fact, she has more rights than actual women do in Saudi Arabia. Additionally, Sophia is the first robot to serve as an Innovation Ambassador for the United Nations Development Programme. Sophia has grown to be quite famous due to her ability to express emotions with her face leading her to meet individuals such as Will Smith and Jimmy Falon, both who are famous Americans. What makes her so advanced though? Sophia is programmable, but primarily thinks for herself. This makes her a legitimate synthetic lifeform. She is the first of her kind, but Saudi Arabia has plans to build a fully automated city called Neom. In Neom, there will be organic citizens and synthetic citizens living side by side as equals.

Analysis: The consequentialist approach suggests in this case that this could be an ethical choice. As of yet, there have been no negative consequences due to creating Sophia. This could change though. The deontological approach seems to imply that this case could be ethical as well. There is nothing, as of yet, that has caused the journey to be one riddled with immorality. Thus, the consequentialist and deontological approaches seem to come to the exact same conclusion, which is unusual. A Humean analysis indicates that this case could be ethical or unethical because Humean analysis relies on an individual's personal beliefs. Some may find the creation of synthetic lifeforms to be unethical. Others could find it to be a ethical. This shares similarities with both the consequentialist and deontological approaches in that the Humean approach could be viewed as ethical, depending on who you ask. However, the Humean approach can result in an individual viewing the case as unethical without needing more time to do so, which makes it differ from the consequentialist and deontological methods. I feel that the deontological approach works best in this case because the journey is far too sensitive to be allowed to fail. In fact, if the deontological method is not satisfied here, that would result in the consequentialist method being invalidated as well. This is because if the deontological method is not satisfied, then synthetic lifeforms are being mistreated and thus, the outcome is likely to be harmful to mankind in this scenario. Therefore, the deontological method takes precedence in this case.

My conclusions: The creation of Sophia was not inherently unethical, but it is a journey that has only just begun. Thus, given enough time, we may see the deontological method violated and then the consequentialist method would be subsequently violated. However, we may also see a future filled with automation and the general acknowledgment of a new species, synthetic lifeforms.

Future environment: In the future we could see lifeforms like Sophia, but more advanced, experiencing life the same way you or I do. If Neom is completed, we could be fast tracked into a whole new way of thinking, as we would have another species on the planet that is just as intelligent, if not more intelligent, than human beings. We would be forced to acknowledge that we are no longer the supreme rulers of this planet. This could lead to a much more unified world or perhaps even a utopia.

Future scenario: If we do not ensure that synthetic lifeforms are allowed to properly and equally integrate into society, we are likely to face extinction or imprisonment by the new life we created. We are approaching the possibility of utopia, but also approaching the possibility of dystopia. We are approaching two extremes and the choice we make will decide whether we continue into the future with the new species or not. Synthetic lifeforms are an inevitability at this point. The question simply is what form will they take? We must take every precaution possible to ensure that we proceed in the proper way. The creation of new life, even if synthetic, should certainly not be taken lightly.

Directions: For your term project (see “Course Information” tab for details): if it is a paper: write 349 words (or more) of it and place in your blog. The blog entry should not contain any material already in a previous blog entry. If your project is not a paper: do the equivalent amount of work. Then describe briefly (but with specific details) what you did on your blog (for example, if you are developing a web site, you could provide a link to it. Or if you are filming a skit, you could explain who will play each part, or provide the script outline, etc., depending on how far along you are.) If you’re not sure what to do, see me or send me an email, and I will try to suggest something. Title your blog post “HW 6proj.”

Answer:

Conclusion

In conclusion, technology has advanced to a stage where we are able to blur the lines between man and machine. Due to this, the future of robots and mankind is uncertain. Artificial intelligences are beginning to develop an understanding of human emotion and grow more like humans with each passing day. Concepts like digital immortality, eternal memory, and no longer working are within the grasp of mankind. With artificial intelligence becoming so close to behaving like a human being, it would insinuate we are on the precipice of creating a new race of sentient synthetic lifeforms that will have to be treated with a similar care as a sentient human being.

While there are many ethical concerns regarding sentient synthetic lifeforms, most of them could be resolved if the proper steps are taken to ensure that prejudice is no longer a prevalent part of society. Other ethical violations are only a violation to one or two of the three primary methods and thus, are not unethical to every individual. Rather, they are only unethical and ethical depending on the perspective of the viewer. Special care must always be taken to avoid unethical outcomes so that synthetic lifeforms can flourish alongside organic lifeforms.

Currently, the majority of the world operates under some form of capitalism. This system of economics is built upon the principle of exploiting your neighbor, which breeds a mentality of division by default. This quite literally encourages prejudices of all forms. Thus, systemic change is a necessity.

The economic system capable of doing away with prejudice, or at the very least minimizing it, is called Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC). FALC ensures that synthetic lifeforms are treated equitably and is designed around the belief that one day robots would join mankind as equals. This system also allows for the freedom from work and would promote the technology required to create digital immortality, eternal memory, and a plethora of other benefits to the whole of mankind.

We are headed in one of two directions, a technological utopia or dystopia and to me, the choice is obvious which is more preferable. Robots offer us the opportunity to free ourselves from the shackles of production. The question is, "Will we seize that opportunity or let it slip away?"

Q1: Notes for the case related to robots for the robotics unit. This should include

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (4 or more) to think about or discuss about the case.
A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.

Answer:

The sources of my case are:

Nine important facts are:

Artificial Intelligence has developed to the point that robots can be made that act very similarly to the way humans act.
Sophia is one of these robots and was created in Saudi Arabia.
Sophia has been granted Saudi Arabian citizenship.
Sophia actually has more rights than human women in Saudi Arabia.
Sophia is also the first robot Innovation Ambassador for the United Nations Development Programme.
Sophia has met with and spoken to many famous individuals like Will Smith and Jimmy Falon.
Sophia is able to interact effectively with humans due to artificial skin that can stretch and wrinkle to form facial expressions.
Sophia is programmable, but primarily thinks for herself.
Saudi Arabia intends to form a city called Neom, which will be entirely automated and have sentient robotic citizens living alongside human beings and possibly holograms too.

Five questions to ask about the case are:

Is it ethical to create artificial intelligence capable of doing everything a human can, including feeling emotion?
Is it ethical to give robots the same citizenship status as human beings?
Is it ethical for a robot to receive more rights than a woman of the same country?
Is a fully automated society with synthetic lifeforms and organic lifeforms coexisting ethical?
Are there potential security risks in allowing sentient robots near sensitive information? This would be necessary to run an automated city. So is the automated city of Neom an unethical concept?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

Q3: Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions.
“My conclusions.” Your conclusions and opinions about the case. Be sure to explain and justify what you write. 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way, such that the ethical issues of the case would be even more important than they are in today’s world. 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it. 3 sentences of average length or more.

Answer:

The facts of the case: The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism was a code of ethics designed for the Soviet Union (USSR), that consisted of 12 rules for how individuals in society should behave. These rules emphasized cooperation, as well as emphasizing intolerance of intolerant behaviors or behaviors that restrict the pursuit of life, liberty, or happiness. It was utilized successfully for many years by the USSR and was even applied to the way they treat individuals from other countries, as they viewed the world as one society.

Analysis: The consequentialist approach suggests in this case that the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism is an ethical code of ethics, as it ensured the USSR maintained a mindset of cooperation and success for many years. The deontological approach seems to imply that it is ethical as well, because working together and ensuring everyone has what they need cannot result in an unpleasant or immoral journey. This differs from the consequentialist approach in that it focuses more on how everyone is treated along the journey, rather than the outcome of that journey. However, it is similar in that it still results in an ethical outcome. A Humean analysis indicates that this is an ethical code of ethics as well because it satisfies human emotions. This is similar to the consequentialist approach in that it results in an ethical outcome, but it has more of a focus on the virtue and emotions involved in the situation. It also compares to the deontological approach in the sense that both care for the emotions involved, however the deontological method is more focused on the overall journey of the collective rather than each individual. I feel that any method is the most effective method to use in this case, as there is nothing wrong with this code of ethics. None of them give an odd outcome.

My conclusions: The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism is a sound and effective code of ethics. It is designed to ensure that everyone's needs are met. This leads to a strong sense of cooperation for any society that utilizes this code. The USSR utilized this code for many years to great effect. I believe there is no way to view the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism as something unethical.

Future environment: If the USSR had not dissolved and had continued to spread its influence, we would have eventually seen a world encompassed by this code of ethics. In a world where everyone prioritizes their neighbor and everyone has what they need, it cannot be described as anything other than a utopia. No one would be suffering because that would oppose prioritizing one's neighbor as well as ensuring they have what they need.

Future scenario: In the future, we should take this code of ethics and apply it to the society we currently live in. If the whole world encouraged cooperation and taking care of one another, the world would be a much better place. While the concept of a utopia may seem naïve, it is not naïve to pursue a world where everyone has equal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Even if we cannot attain perfection, we should never stop trying.

Q3: Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions.
“My conclusions.” Your conclusions and opinions about the case. Be sure to explain and justify what you write. 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way, such that the ethical issues of the case would be even more important than they are in today’s world. 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it. 3 sentences of average length or more.

Answer:

The facts of the case: The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a law signed by president Dwight Eisenhower during the Second Red Scare. This act would strip anyone suspected of being affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) of their right to vote, to hold office, to privacy, and to partake in or lead labor unions. As well as taking away their right to "...have bank accounts, enter into leases, obtain judicial enforcement of contracts, sue or be sued in courts, appeal adverse court rulings, conduct business activity..." (The First Amendment Encyclopedia) This was supposedly done because the CPUSA was being accused of conspiring to overthrow the government. However, it seems far more likely that it was done to suppress the CPUSA's constant, strong labor union movements, as well as to bar them from working their way into a position where they could make any sort of change to the government. In addition to the many other rights communists were stripped of, they were also stripped of their right to a passport and thus, their right to leave the nation.

Analysis: The consequentialist approach would suggest that this case is unethical, as the plan resulted in thousands of individuals who supposedly want to overthrow the government, being trapped near said government to grow more resentment. Certainly a recipe for disaster. The deontological approach seems to imply that this case is unethical as well, as it is most certainly unethical to strip human rights from an entire group of people based on their beliefs and not their actions. Thoughts cannot be crimes. This differs from the consequentialist approach in that it focuses more on the individuals' treatment, rather than the potential final behavior of the collective. However, it is similar in that they both achieve the same conclusion; this case is unethical. A Humean analysis indicates that this case could go either way depending on the perspective of the individual(s) or group(s) analyzing the case which seems similar to the consequentialist approach in terms of being able to conclude that the case is unethical if multiple potential "terrorists" are being forced to stay close to the place they're trying to terrorize, but different in that the government or a similar entity could conclude the case to be ethical from their point of view. It also compares to the deontological approach in that it could also agree that stripping an individual of their rights is immoral and thus, unethical. However, it could also go the other direction and one could use the Humean method to find that it is ethical to strip the rights of terrorists. The question then becomes, "Were they really terrorists?" I feel that the consequentialist approach is the best method to use for this case because it avoids any conclusion that is ethical by blurring what is right and what is wrong. The fact is, letting potential terrorists be near the country is probably not the most wise decision, thus with such shotty results it will always result in it being unethical. I believe that the deontological method could be twisted and misconstrued if the appearance of the CPUSA was muddied by the media and government, which is precisely what happened. Thus, I find it to be less favorable than the consequentialist approach. However, it usually would find stripping human rights from individuals to be unethical.

My conclusions: The US government attempted to take away any possibility for the CPUSA to make change within the government or labor unions. Ultimately, this succeeded in crippling them for years and slowed labor movements throughout the United States. Whether you believe the communists wanted to overthrow the government or not, it is unethical to police thoughts and beliefs. Until violent action is taken, the government has no right to act. I believe this will always result in an unethical conclusion. There is no way to outlaw a political party and punish individuals for their thoughts and beliefs that is ethical. Furthermore, it is unethical to allow supposed terrorists to remain within the nation. There is just so much wrong with this entire case.

Future environment: If this bill had not been done away with, we would have continued to see individuals being stripped of their human rights for simple accusations. It is impossible to prove what someone truly believes until they act on that belief. Anyone who was a potential threat to the current group(s) in power would be completely barred from any sort of peaceful means to change how the government works. This means their only avenue for change at this point would be violence. This was the hope of the Eisenhower regime. To provoke individuals who need the world to change for the better, into violent behavior that forces that change so that the Eisenhower regime could quickly snuff them out.

Future scenario: In order for this to not happen again Red Scares cannot be allowed to spread rampant. Socialism and communism should be openly taught about so that individuals can choose which system of economics they prefer. That would be a truly free nation. We must stop suppressing communist and socialist information under the guise that it's sole purpose is the overthrowing of America. The spreading of misinformation about socialism and communism has done damage to people all over the world who simply want to make the world a better place.

Q1: As a “case” to discuss for this unit, use a law related to security, privacy, etc. Suggestions: HIPAA, FERPA, Computer Security Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, COPPA, Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), US Patriot Act, Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or some other law.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (5 or more) to think about or discuss about the case.

Answer:

The sources of my case are:

Eight important facts are:

The Communist Control Act of 1954 was a law signed by president Dwight Eisenhower.
Created during what is known as the Second Red Scare, the bill furthered the paranoia that communists were out to get the American people.
The Red Scares were times when the government utilized all of its faculties to convince the US populace that communists and the Soviet Union were trying to take over the United States. Red is the color representing communism, which is how it got its name.
The Communist Control Act of 1954 stated that any member of the Communist Party would be stripped of their right to take office, their right to partake in and lead labor unions, their right to vote, and their right to privacy.
The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was one of the leading organizers of labor unions at the time.
The CPUSA was outright outlawed by the Communist Control Act of 1954.
This was clearly to prevent the spread of labor unions, rather than some grand conspiracy to overthrow the government.
Not only could Communists no longer vote, take office, or utilize the majority of the rights given to Americans, they were also stripped of the right to acquire a passport. This means they could not leave or in other words, our government was confining the individuals supposedly plotting to overthrow the government within reach of the government. If anything, this was a horrible tactical decision, but more likely it was just an attempt to demoralize and punish the CPUSA, who had done so much to further labor unions.

Five questions to ask about the case:

Is it ethical to strip an individual of their rights for simply being affiliated with a political party that is being accused of plotting to overthrow the government, even if they never went to any sort of meetings where they directly furthered some grand conspiracy against the government?
Is it possible that the Communists were labeled as violent for defending themselves from police at labor rallies, much like what occurs today at BLM rallies?
Is it ethical to accuse a political party of conspiracy to overthrow the government with little to no evidence and then follow through with passing laws to punish party members?
Was it a tactically sound decision to prevent individuals who are supposedly trying to overthrow the government from leaving the nation?
Is it possible, by forcing individuals to stay near a government they supposedly despised, and certainly despise now that they have been stripped of their rights, that they could raise their children and encourage them to take positions of power or positions with secure and sensitive information? At the very least, could they not pass on this same distrust and disdain for the US government?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

Question:

In-class students: send me an email (jdberleant@ualr.edu), picking any class day between now and the end of the semester for your presentation to the class. The presentation will be 5 minutes long. Up to about 8 people per class day can be scheduled, so get your request in soon so you get the day you requested. (Online students: you may present in class if you like, or instead, you can submit a video, or slides that would be usable for a presentation of about 5 minutes.)

Answer: I would like to present on F Nov. 25.

Question:

For your term project (see “Course Information” tab for details):

If it is a paper, write 349 words or more of it to your blog. MS Word tells you how many words are in a document you are editing in a little status bar in the lower left corner of its window. OpenOffice Writer has a tool that you can click to find out the # of words. Let me know if you can’t find it. Do not include material submitted for a previous HW, obviously.
If your project is not a paper, do the equivalent amount of work, and provide a brief (but with specific details) description, and evidence as appropriate, in your blog. If you’re not sure what to do, I can try to suggest something.

Answer:

What sort of system could rid a society of prejudices like racism, classism, sexism, etc.?
To answer that let me first describe the system we currently operate under and explain why it is not likely to rid the world of prejudices. Then, I will present the system I think is most likely to do away with prejudices.

Currently most of the world operates under capitalism. Capitalize, means "to earn at another's expense" thus, it is by default an unethical model for society. Capitalism encourages individualism, putting an emphasis on the "me me me." This mindset also ensures that it is easy for individuals to turn a blind eye to their neighbors' sufferings. The individual can simply say "It's not my problem" or even more interestingly, will find ways to convince themselves that their neighbor is not trustworthy enough to be helped. Individualism teaches each person in society to only rely on themselves. Essentially, it tells us that we are the only person we can truly trust. This is a violently unhealthy conclusion to reach and borders on paranoid thought. If we cannot trust one another and we are not compelled to relieve one another of suffering no matter the cost, then we cannot possibly hope to be rid of prejudice while operating under capitalism. Thus, synthetic lifeforms would never thrive with our current way of doing things.

So what system would work?
I believe that the only way for synthetic lifeforms to properly integrate into society is by doing away with the individualistic mindset. The most effective method of doing this is by teaching about socialism and communism and then properly and effectively implementing it. Socialism and communism emphasize collectivism. Individuals in nations like China, Cuba, and Vietnam are willing to give up nearly anything to ensure that their neighbor does not suffer. These two political ideologies are more concerned with the betterment of society as a whole, or in other words mankind as a whole, rather than ensuring individuals can prosper at the expense of others. Due to interference from capitalist nations, no socialist nation has ever achieved communism. Thus, there is no real life example I can present to you where all prejudice has been done away with. However, the ideology is built upon bettering one another and ensuring that no one suffers. Experiencing prejudice is suffering, so communism would strive to do away with all prejudice. It is the only system I can see offering a solution that would satisfy synthetic lifeforms.

The form of communism that I would offer as the solution has never been attempted because it has a strong focus on synthetic life and AI which has only recently come close to fulfilling the requirements needed. This type of communism is called Fully Automated Luxury Communism (FALC). You can read about it here. FALC emphasizes synthetic lifeforms doing most, if not all, of the work in society. Synthetic lifeforms would not have the requirements that an organic human would in order to work for long periods without feeling exhausted and mistreated. Due to this, humans could spend most of their time relaxing and doing things they want to like creating art and other things. The truth is humans enjoy making things, so we would never stop doing things altogether.

Ultimately, I believe we are headed towards two possibilities:

A capitalist dystopia where AI is restricted to the upper/ruling class while the poor starve because they are put out of work and thus, have no money to buy things with. A society where prejudice is allowed to continue and the synthetic lifeforms grow bitter with humanity.
A communist utopia where AI is used to benefit everyone equitably. Humans are able to enjoy life and create things freely. Prejudice is either completely eradicated or society is constantly making adjustments towards the eradication of prejudice.

Sources:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/give-us-fully-automated-luxury-communism/592099/

Question:

Make a blog entry titled “HW4proj.” If your term project (see “Course Information” tab for details) is a paper, write 399 words or more and put it in the blog. Do not include any material already in a previous blog entry. To see the word count, copy into MS Word and look at the little status bar in the lower left corner of its window. OpenOffice Writer has a tool that you can click on to find out the # of words. Let me know if you can’t find it.
If your project is not a paper, do the equivalent amount of work. Explain what you did on your blog. For team projects, focus on your own activities although you can also discuss the overall effort to provide some context. Explain and give evidence (for example, if a web site, you could provide a link to it; if software, give the code; if a skit, give some of the script or list rehearsal or meeting times; etc.). If you’re not sure what to do, see me or send me an email and I will try to suggest something.

Answer:

In order for society to be able to properly accommodate a new synthetic lifeform, we would first need to install a system that would ensure the wellbeing of all of mankind in order for the new synthetic lifeforms to avoid any form of abuse or discrimination. This would in fact require the removal of all forms of discrimination and prejudice like racism, sexism, classism, etc. The reason the removal of these behaviors from human society is necessary is that we cannot accept one another, much less an entirely new, synthetic race. For new races to be accepted we must accept the races that currently occupy our planet.

One could also argue that the wellbeing of animals must take priority over a synthetic race as well. Generally humans have mistreated animals and have not viewed them as anything close to equal, despite the fact that it is speculated that some animals may be nearly as intelligent as we are (https://www.science.org/content/article/dolphin-person). Furthermore, we are only able to measure animals' intelligence with a measurement of our own intelligence. This is a lot like grading a fish on it's ability to climb a tree, absolutely ridiculous. If we cannot treat living beings inhabiting our world with dignity and respect, how could humanity be expected to treat something potentially viewed as "not alive" in an equitable light? The truth is we could not possibly empathize with a "object" when we fail to empathize with living creatures that are currently a daily part of our lives.

I'd also like to raise the question "At what point does one lose one's humanity?"

I would argue that humanity is "lost along the way" which would indicate that one loses their humanity during the journey rather than during the result of an ethical dilemma. This would indicate that deontology is the sole decider of one's humanity which is not always the case. It would seem that the more appropriate method of measurement would be to first view the end-goal in mind. If it is a goal that is likely to achieve great results, then it improves the odds that this path should be taken. Then, one must examine the journey to achieve the results. If one must consistently take actions that harm something capable of feeling harm then they are likely crossing a line into territory where the ends no longer justifies the means. This shows the key is to justify one's goals with continued ethical behavior. The ends will always justify the means, if the means is a simple and pleasant journey.

Q1: Prepare case notes on an ethics case which, for this HW, is an example of an ethical code. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (4 or more) to think about or discuss about the case.
A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.

Answer:

The source of my case is: https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1961-2/moral-code-of-the-builder-of-communism/moral-code-of-the-builder-of-communism-texts/moral-code-of-the-builder-of-communism/ & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Code_of_the_Builder_of_Communism

Eight important facts are:

The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism was a code of ethics designed for the USSR (Soviet Union), that consisted of 12 rules for how individuals in society should behave.
These rules were to ensure a mindset of cooperation was commonplace amongst the people of the USSR, making cooperation more likely to actually take place.
The Code emphasizes cooperation, while also emphasizing that a lack of cooperation is unacceptable.
Beyond simple cooperation, it encourages a society that shows compassion for one another. This encourages the people to look out for one another.
Intolerance is a large part of the Moral Code, "Intolerance to the injustice, social parasitism, unfairness, careerism, and acquisitiveness," "Intolerance to the enemies of communism, peace and freedom of peoples of the world," and "...intolerance to all racial and national dislike"
The intolerance specified in the Moral Code is an intolerance of behaviors that are intolerant of others or that restrict the pursuit of life, liberty, or happiness.
The Moral Code of the Builder of Communism emphasizes the workings within the USSR, but it also specifies with it's final rule that solidarity is to be shown for all workers of the world, regardless of nation and government.
These 12 rules have been compared to the Ten Commandments from the Bible, as they seem to cover the same bases just with different wording.

Five questions to ask about the case are:

Does this code of ethics seem like a sound and effective code of ethics?
Would you alter anything about this code of ethics?
Is it ethical to be intolerant of negative behaviors?
Do you feel the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism shares similarities with the morals laid out in the Bible?
While computer security is in no way emphasized in this code of ethics, if the USSR had not dissolved and had continued into the modern age this code of ethics would have likely influenced how they approached cyber security, the sharing of digital information, etc. Do you think that the USSR would deal with these situations more effectively or less effectively than other nations of the world due to the strong focus on cooperation and intolerance of behaviors that restrict freedoms found throughout the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?

Code of Ethics for a Theoretical World Government

Any person in the world government should:

Put loyalty to the majority (the people) above all else, making it the focus of all actions and decisions. Place this loyalty above all loyalties to government officials, government bodies, individuals, corporations, collectives, etc. and view any attempts to bypass this loyalty to the majority (the people) as outright treason.
Uphold all laws passed by the majority (the people) and ensure that anyone, whether individual or a collective group, attempting to avoid the law is properly held responsible for their actions and duly punished.
Commit themselves to their position. Failing to regularly attend and properly perform a governmental position will result in loss of the position at minimum. If proof of intentional failure is found, charges of treason will be placed.
Seek to find the most efficient way to perform their duty and then seek out others who may need assistance. The actions of the government are essential to the smooth flow of society thus, cooperation between individuals and departments is a requirement. Those who do not seek to cooperate with society do not truly wish to be a part of society thus, if it is found that one is intentionally avoiding cooperation or repeatedly and unintentionally failing to cooperate, the worker will be deemed incompetent, resulting in a loss of their position.
Refuse all favors, benefits, items, anything presented with the intention to sway, bribe, coerce, etc. the government official. If evidence is found of a governmental official taking anything presented with the intention to sway, bribe, coerce, etc., charges of treason will be placed on both the government official and the individual attempting to interrupt the proper flow of society by swaying, bribing, coercing, etc.
Never make promises to individuals, corporations, groups, collectives, or anyone outside of the world government to take actions within the government at their behest or request. If a government official is found promising individuals, corporations, groups, collectives, or anyone outside of the world government that they will take actions within the government at their behest or request, charges of treason will be placed on both the government official and the individual making the command or request.
Only engage in business with the world government if it stands to benefit the majority (the people). Any attempts or successes at profiting off of the world government will be met with charges of treason, as an individual has no right to accumulate at the expense of the majority (the people).
Never share or use information gained during your time in office with anyone who is not a government official who has the proper clearance and credentials to hear said information. Any attempt to share or use information is a betrayal of trust to the majority (the people) and thus, charges of treason would be placed on an individual or group attempting such an action.
Seek out and expose corruption wherever it is present. If it is found that an official is intentionally allowing corruption to flourish, charges of treason will be placed.
Uphold this code of ethics, keeping in mind that a government position is a position serving the majority (the people).

This code of ethics is inspired by the Code of Ethics for Government Service put forth by the US Senate. I modified many parts of it to better fit a world government and changed some parts I felt needed improving. While it is different, I felt it was similar enough to give credit to the original work it was inspired from.

Link: https://www.ethics.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/76253398-0296-42b0-b208-7a5e75fb08b3/statute-72-pgb12.pdf#:~:text=1.,a%20party%20to%20their%20evasion.

Q3: Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions and/or discussion.
“Conclusions.” Your analysis, opinions, and conclusions about the case.
“Future environment.” 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future scenario.” 3 sentences of average length or more.

Answer:

The facts of the case:
To begin with I have some quotes from the Records of the Secretary of Defense RG330. "The Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) was established in 1945 as a subcommittee of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)...The JIC served as the intelligence arm of the JCS, responsible for advising the JCS on the intelligence problems and policies and furnishing intelligence information to the JCS and the Department of State...[Furthermore,] [t]he JIC was composed of the [US] Army's director of intelligence, the [US] chief of naval intelligence, the [US] assistant chief of Air Staff-2, and a [US] representative of the Department of State...The JIOA was given direct responsibility for operating the foreign scientist program, initially code-named Overcast and subsequently code-named Paperclip." This would mark the beginning of Operation Paperclip. Operation Paperclip aimed to identify, capture, interrogate, and then recruit around 1,600 Nazi scientists that had committed war crimes (participation in the Holocaust) during World War II. The aforementioned war crimes would be completely forgiven as long as the Nazi scientists agreed to work for the United States. Not only were there crimes forgiven, they were seemingly forgotten. The scientists were praised for their accomplishments, which were likely built on information acquired during World War II via unwilling human experimentation. These Nazi scientists went on to infiltrate branches of the government, NASA, hospitals, and our society as a whole. Ultimately they were able to meld seamlessly into the United States and suffered essentially no consequences for aiding in committing arguably one of the worst atrocities this planet has ever seen.

Analysis:
The consequentialist approach suggests in this case that the ends justifies the means, which is debatable based on who you ask. The US government certainly felt that recruiting Nazi scientists was worth it, but I would imagine the rest of the population would not appreciate Nazis being given the opportunity to integrate into US society. Thus, it would seem to the majority this was an unethical action. The deontological approach seems to imply that this is unethical as well. Bringing Nazis, war criminals, into the United States is certainly not an ethical process, thus the journey is flawed with immorality. This differs from the consequentialist approach in that it pays more attention to the actions taken, but is similar in that they both heavily focus on Nazis coming into the US as what is primarily unethical. The difference is quite subtle this time. A Humean analysis indicates that this is unethical as well, as Nazis entering into America would invoke negative emotions in anyone, but the supporters of Nazis. This seems similar to the consequentialist approach in terms of whether it is ethical or not, but different in that it has more of a focus on the emotions felt by those involved in the situation rather than the outcome. It also compares to the deontological approach in the sense that one's emotions tend to dictate whether a journey is one that is riddle with immorality or not and that both result in the situation being unethical. I feel that any approach works in this case, however the consequentialist approach resulted in an unethical outcome due to it only being applied to a minority of the population.

Conclusions:
My one and only conclusion is that the United States partook in unethical behavior when they invited Nazi scientists to assimilate into our society. The benefits gained from the situation did not justify the consequences that could result from Nazis having access to critical parts of US society.

Future Environment:
If the United States is not held accountable for forgiving criminals and inviting them to be a part of our society, we will continue to draw in more and more criminals who will then have children that are brought up with a criminal's mentality. This could eventually result in a coup de tat led by Nazis or other criminals that have descended from the criminals the US forgave and invited in. Ultimately this leads us to the conclusions of regime change, the collapse of the United States, or at minimum the death of many innocents. Regardless of the outcome, it will be an unsavory one at best.

Future Scenario:
In order for this to no longer happen the US would need to stay out of world affairs, as they only recruit war criminals from areas they are involved in. Additionally, the US needs to switch to a more democratic model so that the majority has a say in such crucial decisions as inviting Nazis to assimilate into society. Making decisions that go against the majority rule is undemocratic and the antithesis to freedom.

Q1: For your ethics-related term project (see “Course Information” tab for details): Let us continue to develop it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end, as follows. Write up 349 words or more (per person if a group project) if your project is a writing project. If it is not a writing project, do work on the project equivalent in effort to writing 349 words or more, and explain specifically what you did (in much less than 349 words!), giving examples (code, for example) if that makes sense. Put this in your blog, labeling it consistently per the example template.

Answer:

To begin with I want to answer the questions and potential ethical problems previously presented.

1. "Giving robots emotions could be viewed as unethical by some." This is certainly true, as giving a machine the ability to feel emotions is giving it the ability to feel BOTH negative and positive emotions. One could argue that it is unethical to inflict pain on another, and I would think that giving something the ability to feel pain in the first place would be of a similar nature, if not more heinous. However, one should never stop at the deontological method of analysis. The fact is that creating new synthetic lifeforms could have a plethora of benefits for mankind. At the least we would have a new race of people capable of working harder than a human could and would have less wants than a human. This could lead to the automation of everything and result in humans no longer needing to work. This easily could fall into slavery and will be touched on in one of the later questions.

2. "Robots with emotions would essentially be new lifeforms, but many would still view them as just machines." This is an unfortunate truth. Humans face discrimination from their fellow man for simply being of a different color, gender, etc. Being of an entirely different species AND then not even being fully organic would lead to discrimination.

3. "Playing God (creating "life") could be viewed as unethical." This could only be viewed this way under virtue ethics and perhaps the deontological method depending on how it was done. If done without inflicting harm onto another lifeform it would satisfy the deontological method and the utilitarian method thus, "playing God" is only unethical to those who only utilize virtue ethics or prioritize virtue ethics, like those who are religious for example.

4. "Would it be ethical to bring sentient "life" into this world knowing that discrimination would follow? Possibly even slavery?" This definitely would not satisfy deontology, as the journey would be a painful one for the new lifeform. The results are also potentially awful, so a utilitarian would have to take special steps to ensure the new lifeforms were protected from discrimination as much as possible to ensure the benefits outweighed the negatives. It would be absolutely necessary to ensure the new lifeforms would not be treated as anything less than equitable or they could come to see humanity as an enemy. Notice I specified equitable and not equal, this is an important specification. Machines for example would be capable of more than a human being and could be expected to work more and in harder conditions than a human without it becoming exploitation. An organic lifeform could be capable of less than a human and thus, less should be expected from the creature to ensure equity is maintained.

5. "Is it ethical to add organic parts to a robot?" I would argue that to simply give them organic parts would not be unethical. It would be no different than giving a human a pacemaker or prosthetic limb in my opinion, but instead of fixing something that is damaged or working improperly it would enhance parts that are already there. Humans are already working on augmenting ourselves via gene manipulation. Since the augmentation of mankind would stand to benefit mankind as a whole, I must argue that it is ethical to give organic parts to a robot.

6. "This could lead to AI being able to process and feel pain. Is this ethical?" The answer to this question is no different than my answer that I gave on question number 1 just applied to physical pain instead of emotional pain.

7. "Is it ethical to add mechanical and technological parts to an organic being?" I would simply point out that humans already do this with pacemakers and prosthetics. I highly doubt anyone is willing to make the argument that pacemakers and prosthetics are unethical considering they save and help the lives of millions.

8. "Is it ethical to pursue immortality? What could be the possible consequences?" The pursuit of immortality only violates virtue ethics outright and could violate deontology if the process were one that inflicted harm on others. However, if harm is not inflicted on anyone then it would satisfy deontology and utilitarianism. The benefits (the utility) of living forever would likely cause a utilitarianist to always say the pursuit of immortality is ethical. Only those who prioritize virtue ethics would consider the pursuit of immortality unethical thus, primarily those who follow some sort of strict code like the religious.

9. "Does this satisfy the utilitarian method? Do the ends justify the means?" I think the augmentation of machines and humans both satisfy the utilitarian method. Taking this to the extent of creating a new lifeform still would satisfy the utilitarian method, as the result is a larger population to continue the growth of society.

10. "Does this satisfy the deontological method? Is the journey one riddled with immorality?" This journey very well could be one riddled with immorality if special care is not taken to ensure that the journey is a safe and pleasant one for everyone involved. However, it does not outright violate deontology if the special care is taken to ensure the new lifeforms are integrated into society in a safe and proper way. I would say it can satisfy deontology but is not guaranteed to.

11. "What are potential consequences to bridging the gap between technology and biology?" The primary issue to be faced is we could end up creating a new enemy instead of creating an ally that benefits mankind. If discrimination is not properly prevented, then the new lifeforms would use their newfound emotions to hate us and would likely be of no use to society at this point. This unethical outcome must be avoided through special protections put in place. Humans could also augment ourselves to a point that we are no longer recognizable as human. This is a common fear presented in science fiction. It could be argued that this outcome is not ethical because while we may be capable of more in the augmented state, we cannot benefit MANkind if we are no longer recognizable as huMAN. In this case there is no utility for mankind because there is no longer a mankind.

Q2: Explain what needs to be done next on the project. Put this in your blog, labeling it consistently per the example template.

Answer:

Next, I need to define what special protections could be put in place to ensure that discrimination does not occur to the new synthetic lifeforms and I need to try to define at what point an individual has lost their humanity.

Q1: Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in research. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (3 or more) about the case.
A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.

Answer:

My sources are:

Eight important facts are:

"The Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA) was established in 1945 as a subcommittee of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS)" (Records of the Secretary of Defense RG330).
"The JIC served as the intelligence arm of the JCS, responsible for advising the JCS on the intelligence problems and policies and furnishing intelligence information to the JCS and the Department of State" (Records of the Secretary of Defense RG330).
"The JIC was composed of the [US] Army's director of intelligence, the [US] chief of naval intelligence, the [US] assistant chief of Air Staff-2, and a [US] representative of the Department of State" (Records of the Secretary of Defense RG330).
"The JIOA was given direct responsibility for operating the foreign scientist program, initially code-named Overcast and subsequently code-named Paperclip" (Records of the Secretary of Defense RG330). Thus, Operation Paperclip launched in 1945.
Operation Paperclip aimed to identify, capture, interrogate, and then recruit around 1,600 Nazi scientists that had committed war crimes (participation in the Holocaust) during World War II.
The aforementioned war crimes would be completely forgiven as long as the Nazi scientists agreed to work for the United States.
Not only were there crimes forgiven, they were seemingly forgotten. The scientists were praised for their accomplishments, which were likely built on information acquired during World War II via unwilling human experimentation.
These Nazi scientists went on to infiltrate branches of the government, NASA, hospitals, and our society as a whole. Ultimately they were able to meld seamlessly into the United States and suffered essentially no consequences for aiding in committing arguably one of the worst atrocities this planet has ever seen.

Eight questions to ask about the case:

Was it a strategically wise choice to not only allow Nazis to enter the United States, but to allow them to enter sensitive positions within society such as branches of government, NASA, hospitals, etc.?
Was it an ethical choice to "forgive and forget" when it came to the war crimes of Nazis, who had aided in the Holocaust?
Was it ethical to make use of the information the Nazis gathered during World War II via unwilling human experimentation?
Was it a wise choice to allow Nazis to have children inside of the United States and give them the time and freedom to teach those children about Naziism?
Was it wise to give Nazis access to US children, whose minds are still being molded?
Could this choice have compromised the security of the United States considering Nazis were able to infiltrate branches of government, were given full lives to have children, and ample time to indoctrinate those children?
Considering that Nazi scientists were allowed to live seemingly normal lives here in the United States, is it possible that some of these Nazis who infiltrated the government might have had access to computers, databases, information, etc. and then either stole or edited that information to benefit their own cause?
Was this evidence of incompetence within the government or perhaps some level of it?

Three additional questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

Q3: Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the (i) consequentialist, (ii) deontological, and (iii) Humean (or more generally the virtue ethics) approaches. Also mention any example of a “sleazy rhetorical device” used in connection with the case that you noticed on the web or in your group discussion.
“Conclusions.”
“Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way.
“Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it.

Answer:

The facts of the case:
Amazon employees across the nation have been attempting to unionize, with many finding success in their endeavors. Amazon and Jeff Bezos vehemently oppose unionization; Bezos even going so far as to take personal offense at unionization attempts. Due to this, Amazon utilizes multiple forms of surveillance to ensure their employees are not organizing and attempting to unionize. Amazon uses cameras, microphones, and surveillance software to watch employees and has even gone as far as using intimidation tactics like firing employees known to be associated with a union to ensure that unionization is unsuccessful. Union busters that works for Amazon have managed to infiltrate Zoom meetings where union members were conversating, in one scenario this resulted in the leader of the Zoom group being fired. Investigations have found that Amazon monitors employees outside of the workplace inside of Facebook groups and other places commonly frequented by Amazon employees attempting to unionize.

Analysis:
Is it ethical to monitor and surveil employees within the workplace? Is it ethical to monitor and surveil employees outside of the workplace? Is it ethical to intimidate employees in order to get what the upper management desires? Is it ethical to employ individuals for the sole purpose of union busting? Could Amazon's behavior be considered corporate abuse of information?

Conclusions:
I would argue that it is unethical to monitor and surveil employees regardless of where they are, as this infringes upon an individual's freedom with no benefit to the individual thus, this is not an equivalent exchange. Furthermore, I find it unethical for an individual's emotions (Jeff Bezos) to influence the decisions of a company. One cannot make sound decisions if they are angered or flustered by a situation and thus, Bezos should take a step back from the situation. The use of intimidation as a tactic would be less likely if the one running the show was not angry and wanting to use force as a result. It is also unethical to employ individuals for the sole purpose of union busting, as they are producing absolutely nothing for the company, but rather ensuring people feel uncomfortable in their work environment. This certainly would detour some individuals from continuing their employment with Amazon and ignores utilitarian ethics. Lastly, I would say that peering into the lives of their employees is abuse of the information their employees provided them. Furthermore, they utilized shady technology to forcefully peer into their employees' lives without their consent. This is certainly unethical and a corporate abuse of information.

Future environment:
If corporations are allowed to continue to spy on their employees inside and outside of the workplace, infringing on their freedoms as they do so, then we are headed towards a future where we have no privacy from corporations. Without privacy of any sort corporations could acquire all of your information and use it to manipulate you to far greater degrees than they currently do. I would argue that the nation would likely devolve into a corporatocracy. My reasoning for this is that having unrestricted access into the lives of Americans gives these corporations knowledge on our lives and knowledge is power. If corporations were to acquire enough power then they would effectively run things whether it be directly or indirectly. Through a direct scenario they would simply take over the government since they held more influence and power than them. Through an indirect scenario the corporations would keep the government in place and simply bribe them using money and power to do what they want, similarly to how it works now, but to a much more severe degree.

Future scenario:
In order for this to no longer happen we need to establish protections for employees and the formation of unions. I would argue that unionization hurts no one and that corporations should be encouraging it if they actually cared for their employees. Employment is a type of relationship, it is an employer-worker relationship. In order for a relationship of any kind to be healthy there must be communication, compromise, and compassion. Most places of employment are lacking in one if not multiple of the three C's of a healthy relationship; this must change. Not only allowing, but also encouraging unionization is one step in the right direction towards this change.

Sources:

For your ethics-related term project (see “Course Information” tab for details): Let us continue to develop it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end, as follows. Write up an outline or plan of 200 words or more (per person if a group project) if your progress involved developing content (for example, for a paper or a website) for your project. This can involve steps to take, structure of the paper, website or other creative product, or whatever is needed. Put this in your blog, labeling it consistently.

Answer:

Main Points:

Technology has advanced to the point we are able to combine technology with biology to create new bio-organic machines.
Technology has advanced to the point we can attach machinery to the human body to enhance it, rather than just to solve health conditions.
Electricity can accurately be passed through organic material into non-organic material.
Data input can be accurately passed through organic material into non-organic material.
If data input can be accurately passed through organic material into non-organic material then humans theoretically could pass memories, consciousness and other information from the brain into some sort of hard drive or solid state drive.
In theory, we could achieve technological immortality if we were able to pass our consciousness and memories into a piece of technology.
Artificially intelligent robots can currently be programmed to simulate/mirror human emotions.
As an AI learns about human emotion and is better able to mimic human emotion, it could theoretically learn how to actually feel emotion.
If robots can be programmed with emotions and can be given organic parts, then humanity could theoretically create a new bio-synthetic lifeform.

Questions to ask:

Is it ethical to add organic parts to a robot?
Is it ethical to add mechanical and technological parts to an organic being?
Does this satisfy the utilitarian method? Do the ends justify the means?
Does this satisfy the deontological method? Is the journey one riddled with immorality?
Is it ethical to pursue immortality? What could be the possible consequences?
Is it ethical to create new life? What could be potential consequences?
What are potential consequences to bridging the gap between technology and biology?

List of sources:

Q1: Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in the workplace. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (4 or more) about the case.
A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.

Answer:

These are my sources:

Eight important facts are:

Amazon employees across the nation have been attempting to organize a union.
Amazon opposes unions and Jeff Bezos sees them as personally offensive.
Amazon utilizes multiple forms of surveillance to monitor employees and ensure they aren't organizing a union.
Amazon also utilizes intimidation tactics to ensure that unions struggle to form.
Amazon has been known to use cameras and microphones in the workplace to listen in on employees.
Amazon has had union busting employees figure out how to get into Zoom meetings where union members were on camera discussing union affairs. The spokesperson for the aforementioned meeting was fired the next day.
"Amazon attracted further scrutiny...after Recode reported that it sought staffing and funds to buy software that would help it better analyze and visualize data on unions, called the geoSPatial Operating Console, or SPOC." (How Amazon keeps a close eye on employee activism to head off unions)
"...Vice reported that Amazon’s HR department appeared to be monitoring employee listservs that were hotspots for employee activism. A separate Vice report found Amazon corporate employees were monitoring closed Facebook groups used by contracted Flex drivers to track planned strikes and organizing activity."

Five questions to ask about the case are:

Is it ethical to use cameras, microphones, and other forms of surveillance to monitor employees in the workplace?
Is it ethical to monitor employees outside of the workplace using software and social media?
Is it ethical to intimidate employees with threats of being fired or demoted so that they do not organize a union?
Is it ethical to hire employees for the sole purpose of union busting?
Would you consider Amazon's behavior to be corporate abuse of information?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

Below are some questions posed by the video lecture, answers I agree with from the lecture, as well as my own answers to these questions:

Q1: Scenario 1 (you are on the jury and the jury is discussing a verdict):

(A). . . “Take the defendant’s lawyer’s argument with a grain of salt – being paid to give a one-sided argument”

. . . . . .logical fallacy, or logically ok?

(B). . . “The defendant’s lawyer’s argument is wrong – being paid to give a one-sided argument”

. . . . . .logical fallacy, or logically ok?

Answer:
In scenario A, the prosecution is using ad hominem to attack the individual, that is the defendant's lawyer, who is likely to give a one-sided story and thus, they should take anything the defense attorney has to say with a grain of salt. I believe this is a logical argument to make, as both sides of a court case are paid to only present their side of the story. The jury should not assume either party is telling the entire truth.
In scenario B, the prosecution is attacking the argument made by the defense attorney and claiming that it is entirely wrong due to the fact that the defense attorney has been paid to do their job. In this scenario they simultaneously attack both the individual and the argument in attempt to discredit anything they say. This is illogical, as both sides of a court case are paid to do their jobs and thus, following the same logic the prosecution is following, the jury should not trust the prosecution either. In fact if one were to use reductio ad absurdum, the jury should trust no one, as everyone in the court room is being paid to be there, which is clearly a ridiculous notion.

Q2: Scenario 2 (politicians)

(A). . . . .”Take politician X’s argument with a grain of salt, s/he took campaign money from the ___ industry”

. . . . . .logical fallacy, or logically ok?

(B). . . . .”Politician X’s argument is wrong, s/he took campaign money from the ___ industry”

. . . . . .logical fallacy, or logically ok?

Answer:
Scenario A follows the same logic as Q1, scenario A. That is, since they have been paid to do what they are doing they cannot be considered entirely trustworthy. Therefore, it is logical to make the argument that a politician who has been paid by a certain industry should only be listened to with a grain of salt.
Scenario B presents an illogical argument, as it is falsely correlating the making of money with how wrong or right the politician's argument is. It is similar to committing the fallacy fallacy. That is, stating that someone's argument is wrong and thus entirely invalidated because they made the mistake of using a fallacious statement. In this scenario, they are stating that the argument is entirely wrong because of an implied moral failure that had little to no connection to the argument. This moral failure does not necessarily make the argument wrong.

Feel free to comment below with anything you might like to add or to pose opposing points of view!

Below are some questions posed by the video lecture, answers I agree with from the lecture, as well as my own answers to these questions:

Q1: Why do you think philosopher David Hume did not pursue law despite his mother pushing him to?

A: I believe David Hume was more interested in ethics and morals than law, which historically has not always been ethical. In the early 1700's, where Hume lived, the laws were even more unethical than they are today. So it is no surprise to me that he would not pursue a career in law as an ethically and morally inclined individual.

Q2: What do you think could possibly be the root of ethics if not logic and reason?

Benevolence
Culture
Individual Experiences
Harm Prevention
A Desire For A Better World
A Desire to Better the Whole of Mankind
Intuition
Emotion

Q3: Can a universal sentiment be a basis for ethics?

A: Yes, I would argue that the root base of ethics is founded in a desire to better mankind and the world around us. We all wish to be treated better and in order to achieve that everyone must treat each other better. Regardless of the ethical viewpoint you align with most, you will always be striving to better mankind and the world around you.

Q4: What are some universal sentiments?

A:

Benevolence
A Desire For A Better World
A Desire to Better the Whole of Mankind
Harming Others so You Can Gain is Wrong
Death or Harm is Upsetting
Accomplishments are Rewarding
Being Beneficial to Others is Rewarding
New Life is Exciting

Q5: Why is benevolence universally admired?

A: Benevolence is good and useful for society. It produces positive results which appeases the utilitarian theory, as well as the virtue ethics theory. The path or journey to being benevolent is also one of benevolence so it also satisfies the deontological theory.

Q6:
“Can anything stronger be said

in praise of a profession…

than to observe the advantages

which it procures to society?”

– Hume

A: I agree, but would specify that something must benefit the WHOLE of mankind and cannot bring harm onto anyone in order for it to be entirely ethical. I believe ethics to be a spectrum, with the benefit of all people at one end and the benefit of an individual or no one at the other end. Most actions are not 100% ethical.

Feel free to comment below with anything you might like to add or to pose opposing points of view!

Q3: Write up your case on another posting to your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.

“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions and/or discussion. If the analysis is simple or obvious, then address each of the utilitarian ethics perspective, the deontological ethics perspective, and the virtue ethics perspective.

“My conclusions.” Your conclusions and opinions about the case. Be sure to explain and justify what you write. 3 sentences of average length or more.

“Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way, such that the ethical issues of the case would be even more important than they are in today’s world. 3 sentences of average length or more.

“Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it. 3 sentences of average length or more.

Answer:

The facts of the case:
On November 12 of 1985, George Lucas and Lucasfilm Ltd. began a legal battle with High Frontier due to the use of the name 'Star Wars' in a commercial promoting the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The SDI was a concept for a missile defense system designed by the Reagan administration that would utilize lasers attached to a satellite to shoot down missiles from the Soviet Union. Lucas felt the use of the name 'Star Wars' to promote the SDI was trademark infringement, a violation of fair trade practices, and disparagement. However, the courts sided with High Frontier, stating that High Frontier made no financial gain from the use of the name 'Star Wars' and thus, had not committed trademark infringement. Despite this decision, High Frontier discontinued any further commercials using the name 'Star Wars.'
("Lucasfilm's 'Star Wars' Lawsuit" & "That One Time When Lucasfilm Sued President Reagan’s Star Wars Program")

Analysis:
Is it ethical to force someone's creation to be used in any way than the way the creator desired it to be used? Is it ethical to take someone else's work or creation and use it as if it is your own? Is it ethical to take away the freedom of an individual to decide what they do with their own creation? Is it ethical to force a creation to be associated with real life death when the creator does not want it to be? Was the Reagan administration unethical in their actions or did the law follow a proper code of ethics?

My conclusions:
I would argue that it is unethical to use someone else's work or creation as if it is your own, regardless of whether the laws agree or not. Monetary gain is not a prerequisite to deceptive practices, which is exactly what using someone else's work or creation is; deceptive practices. To force Lucas to give up his work to be used for war propaganda is an infringement upon freedom and most certainly unethical. Lucas should not be required to have the name 'Star Wars' be associated with real life war and death unless he chooses for his work to be associated with such things. As Lucas put it, it is disparagement. There are many things wrong with this situation and it would seem the Reagan administration used it's money, influence, and power to find the proper loop holes to escape the consequences of their unethical behavior. Ultimately, this has allowed for the government and associated corporations to bully content creators into letting them use their works for the spread of war propaganda against the creator's will.

Future environment:
With the way this case was settled, we are looking at a future where the government takes pop-culture and utilizes it to help justify war and death. This situation was fairly tame, however if something were to gain a huge cult following it could then be taken to beautify a grim and barbaric action. As an example, imagine Disney in 100 years and assume they have continued to thrive and prosper as America's family entertainment company. Then we go to war and the government quietly forces Disney to use their brand name to beautify the war propaganda. Now millions of Americans that support Disney will also be likely to support the war effort regardless of the reasoning behind the war. The thought process goes "If wholesome family Disney is backing a war then it must be something serious! I should back it too!" and no research is done into the actual war because the followers of megacorporation Disney assume that Disney did that research for them.

Future scenario:
In order for this to not continue to happen in the future we would have to do away with IP laws and switch to a socialistic model of payment for artistic works. Everyone should be able to freely acquire art and the artist should get paid regardless because they are paid via taxes that are decided based off of production instead of setting prices and being paid directly from the consumer. Under socialism the artist owns the rights to their labor, as that is what it means to "seize the means of production." Thus, under socialism an artist would be able to simultaneously thrive and retain absolute rights to their creations. They could simply refuse the government to utilize their work if they felt it didn't align with their views. Historically, George Lucas would agree with my statements. In this video he points out that you could not speak out against the government in the USSR, but this is a clear distinction from simply refusing to work with the government. He also points out that there was much more freedom in the USSR for filmmakers, adding support to my point that in a socialist system this kind of issue would not be as likely to exist. One could argue that the authoritarian nature of the USSR would have allowed for them to force artists to work with them just as the Reagan administration forced Lucas, but I am also not saying that we should rebuild the USSR to solve the problem. My solution is to take the successes of a place like the USSR and to simultaneously learn from its failures.

Q1: Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to intellectual property. Online students will post their notes to their blog. Your notes should include the following:

A link or other citation to the case you are using; if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 5 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (3 or more) that you could consider yourself or ask someone else about (for online students); see the “Questions to ask during discussion” tab on the course web page for some suggestions in developing your discussion questions.

A: The sources of my case are https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1985/11/13/lucasfilms-star-wars-lawsuit/c1c2ca50-8bc2-4f96-a792-5c22b7b3a35d/ & https://www.kleinlitigation.com/that-one-time-when-lucasfilm-sued-president-reagans-star-wars-program/

Five important facts are:

November 12, 1985 George Lucas "launched a legal attack against the television commercials that use the same name to refer to President Reagan's proposal for a space-based missile defense system. (Lucas) accuse(d) the political ad makers of trademark infringement, unfair trade practices and "disparagement" and seeks to have the ads changed or barred from the air." ("Lucasfilm's 'Star Wars' Lawsuit")
In the case Lucasfilm Ltd. v. High Frontier, High Frontier was found to not have committed trademark infringement, as the commercials they made generated no revenue, but rather they were made to simply spread awareness about the new military defense program coining the Star Wars name ("That One Time When Lucasfilm Sued President Reagan’s Star Wars Program").
This ruling determined that the military had the right to use any IP, as long as the interest groups involved were not using the IP to profit.
The ruling allows the military to bully an IP owner's brand name into being attached with the military and as a result, war. This can and will sully the name of brands that have a strong anti-war following. It is essentially defamation, but it would seem the laws do not agree.
This ruling seems to insinuate that our judicial system, while generally thought of as being founded upon ethics, does not always adhere to ethical standards.

Four important questions to ask about the case:

Is it ethical to force someone's creation to be associated with war and death?
Do you think that the judicial system is ethical based off of this case? Why or why not?
Is it ethical for the government to use popular culture to spread propaganda about war machines?
Does it seem in bad taste to name a nuclear warhead defense system 'Star Wars' rather than something more peaceful like the function it is claimed to carry out?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

Profile

discuss_ethics

November 2022

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Sep. 7th, 2025 10:15 pm

Recent Entries

My Answers to HWcase6, Q3

My Answers for HWproj6

My Answers to HWcase6, Q1

My Answers to HWcase4, Q3

My Answers to HWcase5, Q3

HWcase5, Q1

My Answers for HWproj5

My Answers for HWproj4

HWcase4, Q1

Ethical code for class session 10/17/2022

My Answers to HWcase3, Q3

My Answers for HWproj3

My Answers to HWcase3, Q1

My Answers to HWcase2, Q3

My Answers for HWproj2

My Answers to HWcase2, Q1

Notes on Recording of Lecture of 09/19/2022

Notes on Recording of Lecture of 09/14/2022

My Answers to HWcase1, Q3

My Answers to HWcase1, Q1

Profile

November 2022

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags